Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is the Papacy the Antichrist?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cow Poke
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    Apparently, he has peddled this stuff elsewhere, and got booted...

    And here...

    and here.jpg

    Leave a comment:

  • Cow Poke
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Apparently, he has peddled this stuff elsewhere, and got booted...


    Leave a comment:

  • Bill the Cat

    Leave a comment:

  • Dave L
    started a topic Is the Papacy the Antichrist?

    Is the Papacy the Antichrist?

    The first written history suggests Arnulf, the archbishop of Reims in the 10th century identified the Papacy as the Antichrist. Later Joachim of Fiore in the 12th century preached the Papacy was the Antichrist. And the archbishop Eberhard II in 1240 also related the papacy to the Antichrist. This led to the martyrdom of many Albigenses, Anabaptists, and others who in part embraced his views. Synopsis of the End Times; A look at the popular beliefs of today by Mike Morrill.
    Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:4; [The Man of sin] “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4) (KJV 1900)
    The bible teaches that Christendom is the temple of God. All the Reformers believed the Papacy is the Antichrist of Scripture who sits in God’s Temple throughout Christendom. Following is a list of Reformation-era creeds and others who provide evidence of this.

    “The Antichrist and the Reformation”

    During the time of the Reformation and following, Christians in every English-Baptist, Lutheran or Protestant and Reformed Church, believed the Papacy was the Antichrist. This fact remains set in the books and creeds of Christendom to this day. Several examples follow;

    From The Westminster Confession which also with some adjustments became the 1st and 2nd London Baptist Confessions.

    Chapter XXV Of the Church

    VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof. but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

    And from the preface to the Canons of Dort;

    For this Church being by God’s mighty hand set free from the tyranny of the Romish Antichrist, & from the fearful idolatry of Popery.....
    Martin Luther declared, “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520). According to The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121.

    I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” According to Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.

    John Knox concluded that the Papacy was “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.” The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.

    “Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.)
    Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.

    “the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2).Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America):” The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.

    Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian): “The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them.” According to The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom’s book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.

    John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, “He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.

    A Great Cloud of Witnesses: “Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” According to All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.

    The Papacy ruling in Evangelicalism today.

    “The Antichrist and the Counter-Reformation”

    To stifle the stigma of the Papacy being the Antichrist, the Roman Catholic Church produced a Counter-Reformation during the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which in turn produced two prophetic doctrines, popular today, in a try to relieve the Papacy of the charge of Antichrist. Even though the two contradicted each other, the Papacy affirmed both to be true in an attempt to deceive Protestants.

    One treatise titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, published about the year 1590, authored by Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) placed the Antichrist in the future, in a rebuilt temple in Israel. This teaching became popular in the last two centuries through the Plymouth Brethren movement and the Scofield Reference Bible notes. Today, movies, scores of Pop-Prophecy Books, and TV Preachers trumpet this teaching unaware of, or possibly approving its origin

    Clarence Larkin (1850 – 1924), author of “Dispensational Truth” and a fixture in many Evangelical and modern Baptist circles, admits;
    Pertaining to the ‘Pre-Trib Rapture position of the last 175 years” he says the “Futurist School ….. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and among Protestants . . . .”; found on page 5 of his book Dispensational Truth, Forty-Sixth Printing. Some of the other printings have it on page 4).

    The other less popular teaching by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613) who wrote Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, today represented by the Preterist School, he originally stated that all prophecy became fulfilled during the first 600 years of Church history. In its most recent form however, Full Preterists believe all prophecy, including the end of the world (yes, the end of the world) received fulfillment before 70 AD.

    Again, in Clarence Larkin’s view;

    The “Preterist School” originated with the Jesuit Alcazar. His view was first put forth as a complete scheme in his work on the Apocalypse, published in A.D.1614. It limits the scope of the apocalypse to the events of the Apostle John’s life, and affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the subsequent fall of the persecuting Roman Empire, thus making the Emperor Nero the “Antichrist.” The purpose of the scheme was transparent; it was to relieve the Papal Church from the stigma of being called the “Harlot Church” and the Pope from being called the Antichrist…”

    In either case, the Antichrist could not be the Pope if he were past or future. To the Preterist, the Antichrist would now be Nero who also had a 666 numerical attached to his name. To the Futurist, He would now be some political figure, or a world leader, or even a giant computer with microchipped followers. But the great deception worked. Neither the Preterist nor the Futurist Schools of Eschatology leave room for the present Papacy being the kingdom of Antichrist.

    So what exactly did the persecuted church believe? Again, Larkin gives an objective view of the matter. He writes;

    The “Historical School. . . interprets the Apocalypse as a series of prophecies predicting the events that were to happen in the world and in the Church from John’s day to the end of time. The advocates of the School interpret the symbols of the Book of Revelation as referring to certain historical events that have and are happening in the world. They claim that “Antichrist” is a “System” rather than a “Person,” and is represented by the Harlot Church of Rome. They interpret the “Time Element” in the Book on the “Year Day Scale.” This school has had some very able and ingenious advocates. This view, like the preceding, was unknown to the early church. It appeared about the middle of the Twelfth Century and was systematized at the beginning of the Third Century by the Abbot Joachim.

    Subsequently, it was adopted and applied to the Pope by the forerunners and leaders of the Reformation, and may be said to have reached its zenith in Mr. Elliott’s “Horae Apocalypticae.” It is frequently called the Protestant interpretation because it regards Popery as exhausting all that has been predicted of the Antichristian power. It was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation, and the conviction of its truthfulness nerved them to “love not their lives unto the death.” It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the Sixteenth Century. (Emphasis added).

    Points to note: 1) The Reformation era churches identified the Papacy as Antichrist. 2) The Jesuits created the Futuristic School which today is Dispensationalism. 3) It modifies Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy to relate to the future instead of being fulfilled and written for the first century. 4) The purpose is to remove the Papacy from the time when Antichrist would succeed the Roman Empire, which it did, to a distant point never having to be proved.

    Antichrist today? The Papacy remains set in most Protestant churches today. His main doctrine, Free Will salvation, occupies the minds and pulpits of most churches today. The Papacy changed the baptism formula spoken by Jesus to the apostles into a Catholic version all mainline churches use today. Most churches believe in a pretrib rapture that came from Dispensationalism, influenced by the Jesuits in their Counter-Reformation. Preterism is another issue embraced by fringe Protestant sects today.
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.